What a wonderful present from you for Browns fans Josh!!!! This will really help another season get off to a good start, kinda like last year!!!????

You better be real good when you return, Mr. Gordon, or you are going to experience the wrath of tens of thousands of fans in the stadium and online.

Thanks for nothing for dropping a bomb on the optimism coming out of Browns camp. Selfish idiots like you are just one man wrecking crews, aren't you? But this is what happens often when teams take a chance on self-destruct characters like Gordon.

Purple Drank and a quack Doctor to write a script after he got tested is my guess. Shouldn't the team Doctors write EVERY script for EVERY player? If not, that is all kinds of stupid on the Browns part.

That's a really good point you raise about the role of the team doctor. He should have been consulted.

You'd think after the Haden incident last year the whole team, including Gordon, would be up on the rules. But maybe Gordon knew he was skirting dangerous territory and didn't care. Amazing. The kid has so much promise and a lot of people trying to help and he still screws up. This casts a cloud over him for sure -- some learn from mistakes, others just keep repeating them.

AttackOffense wrote:That's a really good point you raise about the role of the team doctor. He should have been consulted.

You'd think after the Haden incident last year the whole team, including Gordon, would be up on the rules. But maybe Gordon knew he was skirting dangerous territory and didn't care. Amazing. The kid has so much promise and a lot of people trying to help and he still screws up. This casts a cloud over him for sure -- some learn from mistakes, others just keep repeating them.

Maybe the whole "prescription codeine" thing is bullshit.

The players can say the violation is anything they want to say it was. League/Team can't say anything about the specifics. Gordon putting it off on someone else or as an innocent mistake stinks to high heaven. Those three failed college drug tests were earned and I'd bet this was one was too.

AttackOffense wrote:That's a really good point you raise about the role of the team doctor. He should have been consulted.

You'd think after the Haden incident last year the whole team, including Gordon, would be up on the rules. But maybe Gordon knew he was skirting dangerous territory and didn't care. Amazing. The kid has so much promise and a lot of people trying to help and he still screws up. This casts a cloud over him for sure -- some learn from mistakes, others just keep repeating them.

Maybe the whole "prescription codeine" thing is bullshit.

The players can say the violation is anything they want to say it was. League/Team can't say anything about the specifics. Gordon putting it off on someone else or as an innocent mistake stinks to high heaven. Those three failed college drug tests were earned and I'd bet this was one was too.

How bout once in your life being responsible.

Team Doctor not there to hold your hand? Christ.

Every single one of these guys, that ain't either A. A Liar or B. A God damned moron knows EXACTLY what they are putting in their bodies, and the ramifications.

Blindly go to GNC and pop something from a bottle you didn't read? Moron.

Medicate yourself without knowing the ingredients? Moron.

Most of these guys getting caught knew exactly what they are doing and try to bullshit their way out.

The rest are morons.

Those are your two choices. That simple.

Think about if you had a job paying high six figures to millions, predicated on random drug tests. What would you call the co - worker who ingests things he's either unaware, or knows nothing about.

1. We have a quarterback who probably won't be the quarterback by the end of the season.2. We have a running back who has a snowball's chance in hell of staying healthy for an entire season.3. We've switched our defensive scheme AGAIN.4. We have an owner who probably won't be an owner by the end of the season.

How is Josh Gordon missing two games the key to our season? I'm taking it as a given he's going to smoke/purple drank himself out of the league.

Hikohadon wrote:Weeden showed last year he can get plenty of balls to Gordon. Neither will "stink", far too simplistic.

Gordon will get his share of stats.

The problem is that Weeden will likely get plenty of balls to the opposition as well, and the D won't be good enough to win it by themselves. Oh, and the run game will not provide much support.

Didn't say Gordon stinks. Said he's a liar, dumb as a stump - or more likely, a combination of the two.

Weeden stinks.

And the run game not providing support - why do you think I was practically punching myself in the face at the Wright Place last year?

I was speaking to your assertion that Gordon will "stink" because Weeden "stinks". Even with a "stinky" QB, Gordon had a good year last year, and will likely have a better one this season (even with the 2 game suspension).

I know it's semantics, but if Weeden "stinks", what term do you use for the Colt McCoys/Brady Quinns/Charlie Fryes of the world? Does the scale go Awesome, Really Good, Serviceable, Meh, Stinks, Sucks, Better Off Dead?

Really, I was just looking for a creative new slur for Colt. Something like "I would rank Colt as Anal Fungus."

The merits and rankings of Browns QB's (and QB's in general) is a horse too dead to beat. I agree that our current QB stinks until further evidence is revealed. And I also agree that "Better Than Anal Fungus" isn't necessarily a compliment.

I think that if there's any point I'm trying to make it's that Colt should burn in Hell.

How exactly is this a distraction? Guy goes all of camp and plays in all of the X games, then sits out 2. i really don't see the big deal. Travis Benjamin steps up and problem solved.[/quote]

Don't think for a moment that Browns players don't read and hear the hundreds of thousands of words of gloom and doom surrounding the Gordon fiasco and its impact on the team to start the season. And they'll be asked about it over and over by the media as the summer progresses. Yes, it is a distraction, especially when one considers the same kind of thing happened last year and, breathlessly, killed the team's effort to create a positive vibe from the get-go. Do you think the 2013 version of the Haden incident is any different?

Knowing that maybe your biggest offensive and defense-stretching threat won't be there for the first two games due to human error, not injury, is a big blow.

The psyche does play a role in success or failure in team sports. Just ask the Indians. The Browns have a dark cloud hanging over their collecitve psyche, thanks to the selfish and irresponsible Gordon.

How exactly is this a distraction? Guy goes all of camp and plays in all of the X games, then sits out 2. i really don't see the big deal. Travis Benjamin steps up and problem solved.

Don't think for a moment that Browns players don't read and hear the hundreds of thousands of words of gloom and doom surrounding the Gordon fiasco and its impact on the team to start the season. And they'll be asked about it over and over by the media as the summer progresses. Yes, it is a distraction, especially when one considers the same kind of thing happened last year and, breathlessly, killed the team's effort to create a positive vibe from the get-go. Do you think the 2013 version of the Haden incident is any different?

Knowing that maybe your biggest offensive and defense-stretching threat won't be there for the first two games due to human error, not injury, is a big blow.

The psyche does play a role in success or failure in team sports. Just ask the Indians. The Browns have a dark cloud hanging over their collecitve psyche, thanks to the selfish and irresponsible Gordon.[/quote]

LP

15 years of suck has nothing to to with psyche or any other intangibles.

The fact most years you couldn't find a single GD pro-bowler is where you might start.

And the Indians aren't the Tigers cause of 3-4-5 and who's on the mound.

I wouldn't have to bring PLAYAS up so much if people stopped inventing reasons why the Cleveland teams blow.

But there have been a lot of teams in the history of sports with a lot of good players ... that were mediocre or worse.

Ask Andy Reid about the Eagles. Or ask Jerry Jones about the Cowboys.

Re pro bowlers, that's often a PR/awareness contest in my judgment. There have been many seasons where individialBrowns players had a better year than someone who made the pro bowl team. Kruger is way overrated, in my view, because of the success the Ravens had in the playoffs.

Of course you need good players to win, but in my judgment, there have been many situations where the Steelers and Ravens were outplayed by the Browns only to come back and win because they had the collective confidence as a team to win and Cleveland did not.

AttackOffense wrote:Of course you need good players to win, but in my judgment, there have been many situations where the Steelers and Ravens were outplayed by the Browns only to come back and win because they had the collective confidence as a team to win and Cleveland did not.

AttackOffense wrote:Of course you need good players to win, but in my judgment, there have been many situations where the Steelers and Ravens were outplayed by the Browns only to come back and win because they had the collective confidence as a team to win and Cleveland did not.

There's merit to that.

Name a Raven or Steeler team with a worse roster than the Browns in the last 15 years.

Intangibles might be the difference between two teams equally talented, but it's not close to the difference between a talented team, and a team with zero talent.

The Eagles had a guy who stinks at the most important position on the field. As do the Browns. They both lost. Give one of those teams talent at that position, and give the other team intangibles, and see who comes out on top.

By far.

The Dodgers new corner outfielder is a loose cannon. He's gonna overthrow the cut-off man, he's gonna run you out of some innings. But he's a PLAYA. The Tribe has a fundamentally sound Michael Brantley. Who would 32 teams take to help them win?

AttackOffense wrote:Don't think for a moment that Browns players don't read and hear the hundreds of thousands of words of gloom and doom surrounding the Gordon fiasco and its impact on the team to start the season. And they'll be asked about it over and over by the media as the summer progresses. Yes, it is a distraction, especially when one considers the same kind of thing happened last year and, breathlessly, killed the team's effort to create a positive vibe from the get-go. Do you think the 2013 version of the Haden incident is any different?

Knowing that maybe your biggest offensive and defense-stretching threat won't be there for the first two games due to human error, not injury, is a big blow.

The psyche does play a role in success or failure in team sports. Just ask the Indians. The Browns have a dark cloud hanging over their collecitve psyche, thanks to the selfish and irresponsible Gordon.

Poor babies. Boo fucking hoo. Wow. Is this a team of NFL professionals or a CYO team of 6th graders?

Yes, attitude, confidence, and belief all play a significant role in success. And that is driven by the staff and the idea that the team is stronger as a unit who have each others backs and the notion that someone will step up when a guy goes down. So if anyone on this Browns team is going to lose their shit because Gordon is going to miss two games then those players need to pack their bags now. Real NFL teams overcome injuries and suspensions all the time. They don't whine and cry about someone being out, regardless of the reason.

To try and paint Gordon's 2 game suspension as some type of catastrophic event is absurd. But at least you'll have a built in excuse to bitch about.

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team

AttackOffense wrote:Of course you need good players to win, but in my judgment, there have been many situations where the Steelers and Ravens were outplayed by the Browns only to come back and win because they had the collective confidence as a team to win and Cleveland did not.

There's merit to that.

Name a Raven or Steeler team with a worse roster than the Browns in the last 15 years.

Intangibles might be the difference between two teams equally talented, but it's not close to the difference between a talented team, and a team with zero talent.

The Eagles had a guy who stinks at the most important position on the field. As do the Browns. They both lost. Give one of those teams talent at that position, and give the other team intangibles, and see who comes out on top.

By far.

The Dodgers new corner outfielder is a loose cannon. He's gonna overthrow the cut-off man, he's gonna run you out of some innings. But he's a PLAYA. The Tribe has a fundamentally sound Michael Brantley. Who would 32 teams take to help them win?

Really, again...get some players, win some games.

So every time a Browns team got a lead on Ravens or Steelers and then blew it in the end it was all because of talent. The Steelers and Ravens knowing a team like the Browns would fold under pressure had nothing to do with it. Got it.

I agree that MOST of the disparity is due to the talent gap. But it is foolish to say that team psyche is a non-factor.

The most talented NFL team entering the season very rarely wins the Super Bowl. Tons of factors outside sheer talent level.

AttackOffense wrote:Of course you need good players to win, but in my judgment, there have been many situations where the Steelers and Ravens were outplayed by the Browns only to come back and win because they had the collective confidence as a team to win and Cleveland did not.

There's merit to that.

Name a Raven or Steeler team with a worse roster than the Browns in the last 15 years.

Intangibles might be the difference between two teams equally talented, but it's not close to the difference between a talented team, and a team with zero talent.

The Eagles had a guy who stinks at the most important position on the field. As do the Browns. They both lost. Give one of those teams talent at that position, and give the other team intangibles, and see who comes out on top.

By far.

The Dodgers new corner outfielder is a loose cannon. He's gonna overthrow the cut-off man, he's gonna run you out of some innings. But he's a PLAYA. The Tribe has a fundamentally sound Michael Brantley. Who would 32 teams take to help them win?

Really, again...get some players, win some games.

So every time a Browns team got a lead on Ravens or Steelers and then blew it in the end it was all because of talent. The Steelers and Ravens knowing a team like the Browns would fold under pressure had nothing to do with it. Got it.

I agree that MOST of the disparity is due to the talent gap. But it is foolish to say that team psyche is a non-factor.

The most talented NFL team entering the season very rarely wins the Super Bowl. Tons of factors outside sheer talent level.

Where did I say it had nothing to do with it. Said it pales in comparison BY A LONGSHOT.

The most talented teams compete for the Super Bowl every year - and again, as I stated, perhaps intangibles could be a difference between them.

The least talented teams NEVER compete for a Super Bowl - in any season, no matter how chalk full of intangibles they are. Which is to the point.

And you could also draw a pretty good correlation to "folding under pressure" and "not being that good."

So yeah, I "get it" - but the Browns are trying to build a respectable team. If you want the foundation to build toward winning you'd better fill it with TALENT, and worry about all the other shit later.

As far as the one game samples in regard to the Browns not being able to hold a lead because some intangible situation. All well and good. The overall record vs. those two teams over the last 15 years - those ain't "intangible" indicators. That's two teams knowing how to draft and aquire talent - and one that doesn't. Period.

AttackOffense wrote:Of course you need good players to win, but in my judgment, there have been many situations where the Steelers and Ravens were outplayed by the Browns only to come back and win because they had the collective confidence as a team to win and Cleveland did not.

There's merit to that.

Name a Raven or Steeler team with a worse roster than the Browns in the last 15 years.

Intangibles might be the difference between two teams equally talented, but it's not close to the difference between a talented team, and a team with zero talent.

The Eagles had a guy who stinks at the most important position on the field. As do the Browns. They both lost. Give one of those teams talent at that position, and give the other team intangibles, and see who comes out on top.

By far.

The Dodgers new corner outfielder is a loose cannon. He's gonna overthrow the cut-off man, he's gonna run you out of some innings. But he's a PLAYA. The Tribe has a fundamentally sound Michael Brantley. Who would 32 teams take to help them win?

Really, again...get some players, win some games.

So every time a Browns team got a lead on Ravens or Steelers and then blew it in the end it was all because of talent. The Steelers and Ravens knowing a team like the Browns would fold under pressure had nothing to do with it. Got it.

I agree that MOST of the disparity is due to the talent gap. But it is foolish to say that team psyche is a non-factor.

The most talented NFL team entering the season very rarely wins the Super Bowl. Tons of factors outside sheer talent level.

Where did I say it had nothing to do with it. Said it pales in comparison BY A LONGSHOT.

The most talented teams compete for the Super Bowl every year - and again, as I stated, perhaps intangibles could be a difference between them.

The least talented teams NEVER compete for a Super Bowl - in any season, no matter how chalk full of intangibles they are. Which is to the point.

And you could also draw a pretty good correlation to "folding under pressure" and "not being that good."

So yeah, I "get it" - but the Browns are trying to build a respectable team. If you want the foundation to build toward winning you'd better fill it with TALENT, and worry about all the other shit later.

As far as the one game samples in regard to the Browns not being able to hold a lead because some intangible situation. All well and good. The overall record vs. those two teams over the last 15 years - those ain't "intangible" indicators. That's two teams knowing how to draft and aquire talent - and one that doesn't. Period.

Which does nothing to change my assertion that there is some merit to team psyche contributing to said team's performance.

The percentage of talent vs. psyche isn't what I was debating when you quoted me, and it's not what I'm debating now. If you said "Talent is THE most important aspect of a team winning", I would say "There's merit to that."

BTW - The Ravens weren't even in the top 5 most talented teams in the NFL this year. They got a combination of hot at the right time, good matchups, and lucky. Were they infinitely more talented than the Browns? Yes. But most teams not named Buffalo or Jacksonville can say that.

I understand your viewpoint, but remember some of those Steelers and Ravens wins occurred when they had their QBs and other key players hurt. And some of those Ravens QBs weren't so hot, really. We still lost.

Remember the playoff game where Holcomb had the team up 33-17 vs. Pittsburgh, but the Browns still lost. Another game where one team immediately folded with just a touch of adversity and the other team, always confident, came back and won.

The most talented teams compete for the Super Bowl every year - and again, as I stated, perhaps intangibles could be a difference between them.

The least talented teams NEVER compete for a Super Bowl - in any season, no matter how chalk full of intangibles they are. Which is to the point.

And you could also draw a pretty good correlation to "folding under pressure" and "not being that good."

So yeah, I "get it" - but the Browns are trying to build a respectable team. If you want the foundation to build toward winning you'd better fill it with TALENT, and worry about all the other shit later.

As far as the one game samples in regard to the Browns not being able to hold a lead because some intangible situation. All well and good. The overall record vs. those two teams over the last 15 years - those ain't "intangible" indicators. That's two teams knowing how to draft and aquire talent - and one that doesn't. Period.[/quote]

Very true and the other teams in the division have just killed the Browns in the draft. The Bengals are back up there due to good picks. Ravens and Steelers have done it for years (Ex: Why did Pitts. see the promise in Mike Wallace and made him a third round pick and Cleveland saw nothing in him?).

I think one of the most telling things in the 2013 draft was when Pittsburgh traded its third round pick next year with Cleveland to get a shot at safety Shamarko Thomas with the fourth round pick. Meanwhile, Lombardi passed on the 4th and 5th rounds thisyear, saying the draft wasn't all that great, while our division rivals jumped at opportunities in the later rounds, because they, unlike Lombardi, saw a lot of quality depth still on the board in the 4th and 5th rounds. We'll see who is right.

Personally, I think Shamarko Thomas is going to be a good player, even though he is short, he is very fast for the position.

If the Browns had participated in the 4th and 5th rounds, they could have gotten players like Safety Philip Thomas, who led the nation in interceptions and was first team all america, or BW Webb, the fine corner prospect from William and Mary, or Bacari Rambo from Georgia, who was first team all america in 2011.

Whether you like Tashaun Gipson or Leon McFadden or not, the Browns lack qualit ydepth in the secondary. These kinds of guys available in the 4th or 5th rounds would have provided valuable secondary depth for the Browns and challenged for starting positions. Philip Thomas, for example, has a real shot to start at safety for Washington.

I understand your viewpoint, but remember some of those Steelers and Ravens wins occurred when they had their QBs and other key players hurt. And some of those Ravens QBs weren't so hot, really. We still lost.

Remember the playoff game where Holcomb had the team up 33-17 vs. Pittsburgh, but the Browns still lost. Another game where one team immediately folded with just a touch of adversity and the other team, always confident, came back and won.[/quote]

I thought I already made my point on individual games - in that it's wiser to take the whole - plus there's sooo much conjecture here. The Steelers "confidence" didn't make the comeback, their talent did. Northcut didn't make a play that Hines Ward would've. One's a rummy, one a HOFer.

I'm about done here. Good holy Christ, the DEARTH of talent here the last 15 years is almost without presidence. THAT's why they blow. No other reason. When they get some talent AND THEN guys start doing things that could be deemed intangibly detrimental, then we can pretend that it means something. Until them, blaming the trails of the Browns on things other than not having enough guys around that can PLAY is laughable.

And bringing up Kelly Holcomb - the fact there was a huge QB controversy between Kelly Holcomb and your overall number one franchise draft pick pretty much epitomizes what's gone on here.

Start planning now for the inevitable 1 year (or more) suspension. Gordon is a druggie; if he didn't have the physical traits and abilities that he possesses currently he would be hanging around the Hayden-Shaw neighborhood or some equivalent of it waiting for his own fatal OD/shooting or an incarceration. The Clowns will be starting over at both WR and QB again in 2014. Awesome.

leadpipe wrote:I'm about done here. Good holy Christ, the DEARTH of talent here the last 15 years is almost without presidence.

You need to delete "almost" from the above statement.

Browns haven't had a single GM capable of being called "good" at the draft.Heckert was the best among the whole group going back to Lombardi, the Original, and I'd rate Tom average.

What's puzzling is that a team that desperately needs to add depth in some key spots passed on the 4th and 5th rounds in the draft while other teams fed at the trough. Lombardi thinks he'll use those two extra picks wisely next year. I'll be amazed if that happens.